Interesting demographic shift regarding censorship: Spike in Millennials who favor Censorship

[Solmyr]

I attribute such results to ignorance, not choice. The people answering the poll likely do not realize what government censorship entails and that if it takes root it will censor not just speech they find offensive, but all manner of other things, including speech they would have liked to be free.

Ask those same people "Do you want your government to adopt policies of censorship similar to those in North Korea" and then examine the results.

[Shryke]

I attribute such results to ignorance, not choice. The people answering the poll likely do not realize what government censorship entails and that if it takes root it will censor not just speech they find offensive, but all manner of other things, including speech they would have liked to be free.

Ask those same people "Do you want your government to adopt policies of censorship similar to those in North Korea" and then examine the results.

Well yes, if you ask an inflammatory leading question you would get different results then they did when they didn't do that.

[David Selig]

I attribute such results to ignorance, not choice. The people answering the poll likely do not realize what government censorship entails and that if it takes root it will censor not just speech they find offensive, but all manner of other things, including speech they would have liked to be free.

Ask those same people "Do you want your government to adopt policies of censorship similar to those in North Korea" and then examine the results.

What about if you ask these same people "Do you want your government to adopt policies of censorship similar to those in England"? Since that makes hell of a lot more sense in this context...

[Solmyr]

What about if you ask these same people "Do you want your government to adopt policies of censorship similar to those in England"? Since that makes hell of a lot more sense in this context...

The answer will still be subjective due to lack of understanding what the question means. How many non-British citizens are aware of the censorship policies of England?

Well yes, if you ask an inflammatory leading question you would get different results then they did when they didn't do that.

Inflammation is required when dealing with the grubby, unwashed masses. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Leap,

You "assume" the ends justify the means presented?  That's a mildly terrifying supposition.

Personally, this seems like something I or others would easily vote for, and I suppose part of that is that it's a liberal ideology and you sort of assume that the ends justify the means without ever really considering it. You /must/ be nice sounds a lot nicer than You /must/ wear X or Y, so it's easy to forget the /must/. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Leap,

Apologies for misinterpreting your post even if it was an interesting misinterpretation.

:)

[Shryke]

The answer will still be subjective due to lack of understanding what the question means. How many non-British citizens are aware of the censorship policies of England?

Kinda defeats your point there, don't that?

 

Inflammation is required when dealing with the grubby, unwashed masses. 

Not if you care about actual polling data, which is what you at least initially pretended this was about.

[Swordfish]

I attribute such results to ignorance, not choice. The people answering the poll likely do not realize what government censorship entails and that if it takes root it will censor not just speech they find offensive, but all manner of other things, including speech they would have liked to be free.

Potentially because they cannot imagine a situation in which someone else does not find the same things offensive that they do.  i mean.. it's soooooo obvious........

Sadly, i think that's becoming less and less of a generational problem.

[sologdin]

fairly worthless polling, really.  'offensive to minority groups' is kinda wtf void for vagueness. if it's about racist, sexist, &c language, that's de facto banned already in civil society and at the state level, through anti-discrimination statutes and the corporate compliance policies accommodated thereto.  is the object of the poll to sound out attitudes toward jailing racists?  if so, duh. already went that route by jailing commies. dumb idea, lukewarm liberal hipster trash!

[Seventh Pup]

I think part of it maybe that most millenals have grown up using social media as a main form of communication. Social media is hosted by private companies, and most social media has some kind of censorship or rules of content that can be shared. Despite these rules it's still feels very open and free. So I think many millennial's coming of age in the age of Facebook. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

[karaddin]

I would most definitely to keep the rules we currently have around racial vilification in Australia, and based on events early on in our current Government so would >80% of the country.  I would suggest that there is more nuance to be explored here than just "offense" but I can't imagine for a second that Scot wouldn't consider our laws to fall under this umbrella of censorship.

[OldGimletEye]

That said, in both the USA and UK there do seem to be significant numbers of university students who are hostile to the idea of free speech.

 I find the any trend to limit free speech to be disturbing. The way to deal with rascist, and other assorted intolerant nitwits, is by ridicule, snark and fast talking put downs in my opinion.
And besides, delivering snark and smart alecky remarks to racist and other intolerant idiots can be a hell of lot of fun. Maybe, some millennials are not considering the years of quality entertainment they may not get?

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karradin,
 

I believe you are correct.  Whether you believe in such laws or not non-content neutral laws that restrict speech in anything but time, place, and manner (even those can be considered "censorship") are by definition "censorship".

I sincerely doubt you and I will ever agree on this issue.  But I welcome the fact that you are able to advocate your position without government telling you that you may not say such things.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

I attribute such results to ignorance, not choice. The people answering the poll likely do not realize what government censorship entails and that if it takes root it will censor not just speech they find offensive, but all manner of other things, including speech they would have liked to be free.

Ask those same people "Do you want your government to adopt policies of censorship similar to those in North Korea" and then examine the results.

This isn't ignorance, it's simply progressive groupthink.

They know exactly what they're doing when they try to get Twisted Sister albums pulled in 1988 and boycott goofy Ben Stiller flicks in 2015.

It signals they're good SJW's so don't ostracize and publicly shame them on Instagram for not supporting whacky outrage du jour; because they're on board.

It reinforces the coalition and is simply the left equivalent of when righty freaks out anytime someone takes issue with the military or Christians.

Mostly lip service, I like to think but more likely these troglodytes actually do believe this is a good idea.

[sologdin]

so, purported free speech fundies, do you advocate the extension of free expression beyond the state and into civil society, as i do?  if not, how do you justify your viewpoint discrimination on behalf of private property?  doesn't that make you a bunch of burkean jerks?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

To be clear, are you saying that Bob and his "Texas Grilled Beef" advocacy group should be able to pickit upon my property, or use a bullhorn in front of my office, because of my advocacy for the proposition that only Pork is genuine Barbecue?

[sologdin]

why should we permit that restriction but not others by the state?

i personally find the conduct in your hypothetical to be very gross. what is the principle that differentiates from the state banning injurious expression against minoritarians?

that said, i think we might sweep up the bullhorn with noise/nuisance ordinances, and the picketing with trespass statutes, no?  true speech bans in civil society are like board moderation policy, say.  why should the board be permitted to ban but not the state?

[OldGimletEye]

so, purported free speech fundies, do you advocate the extension of free expression beyond the state and into civil society, as i do?  if not, how do you justify your viewpoint discrimination on behalf of private property?  doesn't that make you a bunch of burkean jerks?

To a certain extent, the issue is worth considering, I think. During the last election there were employers who were pressuring their workers to vote the "correct way". For instance, the Koch bros were giving pamphlets to their workers explaining who they should vote for. 
I don't suppose one of the workers could have written:

Dear Koch Bros.
I really don't buy your Austrian/Libertarian bullshit. Thanks for explaining to me the microeconomic 101 textbook explanation of minimun wage laws. But, there are plenty of reasons to think that isn't so simple as you state.

Thanks, for your "help", but I will vote any goddamn way I please.

Without getting fired.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,
 

What if the same rational offered against racially restrictive covenants were offered regarding free speech on private property.  It would be a violation of the 1st Amendment for the State to act to protect private property owners from the free speech offered by other citizens making the tresspass and nusianse claims unenforcable.

[Solmyr]

true speech bans in civil society are like board moderation policy, say.  why should the board be permitted to ban but not the state?

Who says the board should be permitted to ban? I will wholeheartedly support a law that makes it illegal to censor speech in civil society, such as your example with online discussion boards.